The Islamist War on Free Speech

Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwa against Salman Rushdie and the massacre of the staff of Charlie Hebdo are well-known instances of Islamist use of violence, or threats of violence, to punish blasphemy. Less violent, but more insidious, have been other attempts to silence critics of Islam, including the separate convictions of two Austrian politicians for insulting Muhammad. Denis MacEoin comments on these and other incidents, and their implications:

The chief threat to free speech today comes from a combination of radical Islamic censorship and Western political correctness.

Over the past century and more, Western societies have built up a consensus on the centrality of freedom of expression. . . . [But] many Muslim bodies—notably the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)—have been working hard for years to render Islam the only religion, political system, and ideology in the world that may not be questioned with impunity. They have tried—and are in many respects succeeding—to ring-fence Islam as a creed beyond criticism, while reserving for themselves the right to condemn Christians, Jews, Hindus, democrats, liberals, women, gays, or anyone else in often vile, even violent language. Should anyone say anything that seems to them disrespectful of their faith, he or she will at once be declared an “Islamophobe.” . . .

The OIC has succeeded in winning a UN Human Rights Council resolution that makes “defamation of religion” (read: blasphemy in the eyes of its followers) a crime. But the OIC knows full well that only Muslims are likely to use Western laws to deny free speech about their own faith. . . .

The greatest defense of our democracy, our freedom, our openness to political and religious debate, and our longing to live in an open society without hindrance—namely freedom of expression—is now under serious threat. . . . Since the edict against Salman Rushdie, there is no way of calculating how many books have been shelved, how many television documentaries have never been aired, how many film scripts have been tossed in the waste bin, how many conferences have been canceled—or how many killers are waiting in the wings for the next book, or poem, or song, or sport that will transgress the strictures of Islamic law and doctrine.

Read more at Gatestone

More about: Ayatollah Khomeini, Charlie Hebdo, Freedom of Speech, Politics & Current Affairs, Radical Islam, UNHRC

Hizballah Is Learning Israel’s Weak Spots

On Tuesday, a Hizballah drone attack injured three people in northern Israel. The next day, another attack, targeting an IDF base, injured eighteen people, six of them seriously, in Arab al-Amshe, also in the north. This second attack involved the simultaneous use of drones carrying explosives and guided antitank missiles. In both cases, the defensive systems that performed so successfully last weekend failed to stop the drones and missiles. Ron Ben-Yishai has a straightforward explanation as to why: the Lebanon-backed terrorist group is getting better at evading Israel defenses. He explains the three basis systems used to pilot these unmanned aircraft, and their practical effects:

These systems allow drones to act similarly to fighter jets, using “dead zones”—areas not visible to radar or other optical detection—to approach targets. They fly low initially, then ascend just before crashing and detonating on the target. The terrain of southern Lebanon is particularly conducive to such attacks.

But this requires skills that the terror group has honed over months of fighting against Israel. The latest attacks involved a large drone capable of carrying over 50 kg (110 lbs.) of explosives. The terrorists have likely analyzed Israel’s alert and interception systems, recognizing that shooting down their drones requires early detection to allow sufficient time for launching interceptors.

The IDF tries to detect any incoming drones on its radar, as it had done prior to the war. Despite Hizballah’s learning curve, the IDF’s technological edge offers an advantage. However, the military must recognize that any measure it takes is quickly observed and analyzed, and even the most effective defenses can be incomplete. The terrain near the Lebanon-Israel border continues to pose a challenge, necessitating technological solutions and significant financial investment.

Read more at Ynet

More about: Hizballah, Iron Dome, Israeli Security